The Do’s and Don’ts of Seeking Asylum in the U.K., U.S.A, South Africa and Canada – A complete Procedural Overview

By Shriya Maini*

(This is a complete guide to the procedure of filing a refugee claim in UK, USA, South Africa and Canada. Read on to learn how to seek asylum or file a refugee claim in these countries.)

1. This memorandum describes the procedure of filing a refugee claim in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and then compares it to the modus operandi of three other countries namely United States of America (“USA”), The Republic of South Africa (“South Africa”) and Canada. It discusses at length, the entire procedure of making a claim for asylum, right from when the first application is made by the asylum seeker until the grant or refusal of refugee status by the concerned authorities, in order to facilitate effective comparison between the abovementioned jurisdictions.

Redrafting Genocidal Norms: Requirement versus Ramifications

By Shriya Maini*

(This post is third in the series by where she writes on contemporary issues of international criminal law and human rights. Read the other posts here)

“More case law on genocide established in the last twenty years than in the previous fifty-five illustrate that this is not a Convention in decline, but rather one in renaissance.”

The crime of genocide was described as the “crime of crimes” by William Schabas, denoting the degree of gravity and outrage to human dignity that is incomparable by other international crimes. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 (“Convention”) is an iconic, foundational legal treaty that created a powerful word which is more than mere political rhetoric. By its very nature, the Convention is indispensable, since it (at least in spirit and most parts as norms of jus cogens now) plays an integral role in maintaining civility in international law and progressiveness of the society. However, due to its many shortcomings, I believe

Does International Law Permit Deportation With Assurances?

By Shriya Maini*

(This post is second in the series by Shriya where she writes on contemporary issues of international criminal law and human rights.)

I discuss the current law on deportation subject to diplomatic assurances, in the backdrop of the judgement of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom[1] and conclude that though deportation with assurances (“DWA”) are extremely controversial, particularly since they are not legally binding, they are not always insufficient to meet the receiving state’s obligations: if the assurances cover the prohibited activities, relate to a situation over which the assuring state has control, and come from a reliable source then arguably, the receiving States can rely on it. [2]

Extending the IHL applicable in IACs to NIACs: Re-examining the Tadić and its aftermath

by Shriya Maini*

(This post is part of a series of posts on contemporary issues of international criminal law and human rights.)

In the decades following the adoption of rights by the Geneva Conventions, there is evidence of an inclination towards the application of the rules and principles regarding International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter “IACs”) to Non International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter “NIACs”). This may be seen in the nascent tendency to either ‘apply, or call for the application of’ IHL in situations of armed conflict, without drawing the distinction as to which ‘type’ of conflict (IAC or NIAC) exists and accordingly, which ‘type’ of law is applicable. Prior to highlighting if, how and why International Tribunals have made the laws of IACs applicable to NIACs, I set out three basic facts to be kept in mind while reading this essay.